Ahmed v Noga

[*1] Ahmed v Noga 2012 NY Slip Op 52416(U) Decided on December 21, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-2295 P C.

Ramadan G. Ahmed, Appellant,

against

Russell S. Noga Doing Business as RSN, Respondent.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Kent, Putnam County (Kevin L. Douchkoff, J.), entered July 27, 2010. The judgments, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of only $500 on his cause of action and awarded defendant the sum of $2,500 on his counterclaim, respectively.

ORDERED that the judgment awarding plaintiff the sum of $500 on his cause of action is affirmed, without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment awarding defendant $2,500 on his counterclaim is reversed, without costs, and the counterclaim is dismissed.

The parties entered into a contract pursuant to which defendant was, among other things, to build an addition onto plaintiff's home. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $3,000, representing the cost to repair and complete defendant's performance under the contract. Defendant counterclaimed to recover the sum of $2,500, representing the cost of materials supplied and services rendered. Following a nonjury trial, the Justice Court awarded [*2]plaintiff $500 on his cause of action and awarded defendant $2,500 on his counterclaim.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment awarding plaintiff the sum of $500 on his cause of action provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1804, 1807; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]) and, therefore, that judgment is affirmed.

With respect to defendant's counterclaim, at trial defendant merely stated that he was entitled to recover the sum of $2,500. He failed to specify the material that he had allegedly supplied or the services that he had allegedly rendered. Moreover, he submitted no itemized bills (see UJCA 1804) establishing the cost of any material that he had supplied and he did not testify regarding any agreed-upon cost of the services he had rendered or the reasonable value of such services. Consequently, the judgment awarding defendant the sum of $2,500 on his counterclaim did not render substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. Accordingly, that judgment is reversed and the counterclaim is dismissed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2012